Perhaps many branches of apes evolved into hominids and ranged far and wide, died out, interbred, or were wiped out by more advanced species who left their tools to be found among the poor primitive souls, they slaughtered. Look around at the state of humanity for clue. A National Geo. If it holds up, then and only then does it become evidence. Brandon James Starcevic Yes, my comments are always intended to be light-hearted, thank you. Proud will follow, not by me, but it will.
Brandon James Starcevic Hahaha, yeah, ii had an ex that i had to add emojis in all my text or she would take it the wrong way. Funny how Africa model is still around! We have Fossil Evidence of Ape men and Humans co-existing. We need Real Honest Science. The basic line of hominin genus Homo evolution is well established in the fossil record and via discoveries like these. Evolution says that humans and apes have a common ancestor.
Just a different species. Hominids and apes share a common ancestry, so we are related, but no, humans are not apes. Jim Speidel From Miriam Webster: Definition of Great Ape: Michael Cleveland Which one? Of course I had forgotten that Meriam Webster was the final arbeiter in questions scientific. Even so, you might want to read what it actually says.
Michael Cleveland Ou of India? Ok, bring on the evidence. But you will have a mountain of evidence that says otherwise to overturn. Michael Cleveland I essence I agree with what you are saying, but some of the wording is a bit shaky. Not many areas of knowledge or study are so perfectly understood that we have nothing further to learn. Theory is not fact because it is subject to modification if new information or understanding makes that necessary.
Tools are found and are associated with their local populations, but tools ae often spoils of war and can be looted, pillaged, carried, traded and held and passed down from generation to generation, as well as produced locally. They can be carried thousands of miles, by hunters along the edge of the polar ice as they followed the seals.
When studying tools, it is important to locate the source of the material used. Today geologists have the ability to determine where the tools originated or were mined. Yes, they were hunters but one needs thousands of year to travel thousands of mile. Another hand, migrators do not behave like pilgrims, they migrate, they halt, they reproduce, they die, they again migrate, and in between they change themselves lots physically and culturally.
By the way, multi-cradle idea is no more new now, many anthropologists believe that Homosapeins orginated in differenct palces, however, it is hard for me to digest. Read here: Just few months ago, I read this article on Nature: No, the multi-cradle idea should have been still-born, unsupportable on its face, but everyone has to have an idea.
Most of part of our science is still not completely empirical. We have not progressed beyond Buddha era approach in certain area of science. Nowadays, I am reading Buddhist texts. Monks gave simile of time dilation in Payasirajanya Sutta, DN. Today, modern physicists give proof of relativity theory with gps time dilation. Still none has travelled into the deep space and came back to prove that space and earth time are different.
In our anthropological science too, none can do time travel and prove or disprove evolution. Our grand theories are proved with just similes. We collect the data and interpret in our own ways. In essence, our rationality has limitation.
Michael Cleveland I also have studied Buddhism in several of its many forms. It is also true that both Special and General Relativity have been shown experimentally to be valid many times over. The GPS example is hardly the only one. As for evolution science, we observe nature, and the evidence of more than a century of that carefully vetted observation is solidly on the side of evolution.
This was my point. I hope your words will be true one day! Given said extraordinary tonnages to supply the statistical samplings discovered — where were the chert mines? Never see him sweep up, though! It is very common. Viam sapientiae mundi, per quam pervenitur Michael Cleveland Often the case in the ongoing conflict between ideas and fact.
Monswine Quite a bit of pseudoscience in the comments section so far. Nothing makes headlines like a heterodox interpretation of a new human origins discovery. OneGoodEye The first course of action is evaluation of dating methods. Michael Cleveland Dating methods can sensitive to human error, but work very well when done with proper care. Dating methods for very old samples have been compared, with results found to be consistent within about 1 percent.
When you are looking at dates in the hundreds of millions of years, that suggests very high reliability. Michael Cleveland From an immediate perspective, 10, years is a very long time, but against a geological perspective, against a million years, a variance of 10, years is miniscule, insignificant. No one expects to come up with a date like Sunday, June 3, 1,, BC. The standard is not in the object, but in the method. This is a very high standard of accuracy.
The rest, about contamination, is gibberish, irrelevant to the actual processes, and shows that you have made no effort to look into the actual measurement methods. As I have pointed out in similar discussions, you use a computer, and probably a cell phone, and presumably you accept the science behind them what choice, since they work? Fuzzy thinking, bad logic. OneGoodEye Unfortunately, you appear to misinterpreted my comments, maybe you have me confused with someone else.
I have a great respect for interpreted science, often guesses are in the ballpark resulting in great new discoveries after exercised prudence. Having used radio-active dating professionally, I do understand contamination models better than most. For example, exposure to C14 at an age of , yrs will contaminate a sample to appear , yrs old. Because of this well known effect, C14 marine dating requires corrections. Before the claim was made, there should have been a magnetostratigraphy study to ballpark layers.
Unfortunately, there was no obsidian in the samples for a hydration study.. Fuzzy thinking believes in one type of testing as a validation, much like classical mechanics was one solution to explain all physics. Michael Cleveland I simply answered your own statements.
I should have been more specific, but was not considering C14 as part of this, since the ages being tested are much older than this method of measurement permits, and because we were talking about stone tools, which cannot be dated with C14, except via associated organic materials, and within the maximum limit for the test.
You are correct, C14 is highly sensitive to contamination from a number of sources, and the nature of the sample does have to be taken into account.
However, there are radiometric dating methods for more ancient materials rocks and sediments, primarily which are less or not at all subject to contamination. You are also correct that better dating comes through correlation of multiple methods, but there is no need for a known million year old sample for comparison, since the dating is absolute, not comparative, and derives from known rates of change in the isotopes being measured.
Since no one is looking for calendar dates, that is a very acceptable degree of reliability. Janey Interesting how views change as society advances. OWilson Pingback: This the way science works. If you make a claim that is open to other interpretations, you must be able to support it against alternative interpretations. Evolution being the finest example of incomplete information and guess work.
God is still in change — not man! Peter Watson Religion is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance. Science is always progressing, while religion, not so much lol. I said God is in charge. One that changes almost daily.
The Big Bang has now become alternate universes, etc. Nor does science know how man originated. You may call it progress, but in reality it is guess work based on incomplete and limited data. Michael Cleveland Only religious zealots claim that science is a religion.
If you must dissociate God from religion, then try this terminology: Numinous vs empirical. Empirical observation of the world has nothing to do with religion, and science does not address the numinous because it cannot be observed, measured, or evaluated empirically.
A particular example of the evolution of Middle Paleolithic lithic culture comes in the form of the Aterian - a spear point technology derived from or a part of the Mousterian. The Stone Age of Europe is characteristically in deficit of known transitions. They might have reached Italy and Spain along the coasts. You say I argue against science or know nothing about it and you are wrong. The process of cultural formation and modification during the Neolithic may be studied with the help of the Dating stone tools kinds of pottery and stone artifacts. Mode III: Both Science and Religion address all those issues. The problem Dating stone tools in the nature of this boundary. This latest tool evidence, however, Dating stone tools, suggests that people were already making and discarding stone tools about 15, years ago, which would mean that the migration likely occurred even earlier.
No comments:
Post a Comment